Procreation, again, is obviously irrelevant with regard to the right to marry.

Bill Glasheen wrote:

If it wasn't for procreation, I never would marry. Same with most married heterosexual couples.

Apples and oranges, Ian is talking about right to marry and you are talking about want to marry. People can want to marry for any number of reasons, that does not mean any of them are relevant to marriage being a legal right. Say a single guy wants to marry because he's always wanted his own bachelor party, I'm pretty sure (might even call it obvious) that bachelor parties are irrelevant with regard to the right to marry.

You may think it not a big deal. But many think there's a BIG difference between a civil union and a marriage.

To me, marriage is an institution which revolves around procreation. Without that, I don't need the damned thing and could care less that it even exists. It's otherwise just another form of wealth redistribution when things go wrong, and another reason to feed the lawyers. There are any number of other types of legal agreements. Heck... I enter a legal agreement with my female karate student when I have her do certain things for me in exchange for money and the use of a vehicle -- the combination of which helps her raise her daughter. Sometimes when people see us together, they think we are "married." But we aren't. We have a quid pro quo legal agreement, and I happen to care deeply about them both (as I do many people, including Ian).

There is a compromise which will keep the religious right at bay and allow non-heterosexuals to enjoy many of the benefits and privileges of traditional marriage.

I'm not a religious person, and I don't play one on TV. But I believe there are many different and sometimes conflicting views out there which need to be respected. I'm just saying that there's a chasm between the "right to marry" and the "religious right" which might be adequately bridged if people can get over some silly details. This insistence that "we are the same" is on face value incorrect. If the unions were the same, there would be no reason for the fight in the first place. There would be no need for labels and pride in that which makes individuals unique.

We've been through this argument before. And I know these statements have just whacked the hornets' nest (again) and are going to get some opinions stung. But it is what it is. I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings; I'm just stating what is to many the obvious.

"It's only "obvious" to you because you have a different concept of marriage than many heterosexuals. That's neither right nor wrong, Ian. But it is a fact."

Here is what is clearly, totally, 100% obvious:

1) Straight people are not required to be fertile or even possibly fertile to marry.

2) Straight people who are fertile get married all the time without having kids.

3) People have all kinds of kids without getting married.

4) Many, many LGB couples have children (from prior marriage, from IVF or surrogacy, or from adoption) and can serve the role of stable family child rearing for the country, but gay marriage opponents don't want them married (because they want kids to grow up with married parents?)

5) There is no proposal whatsoever that I have ever heard of or that has been mentioned by anyone here to limit marriage to procreation capable people, or limit any marriage benefit to couples that make kids or raise kids.

So, regardless of what people (here I mean Bill) feel marriage is about, the laws are not written that way, people don't live their lives that way, and no one has expressed any interest in changing that or even dissatisfaction with that reality. That stuff is obvious, even though marriage involves kids many or most times. I do not know how ANYONE could look at the facts and say that procreation ability is relevant to the right to marry; it's not; that's obvious.

Analogy: What if I had said that cars are only about getting from A to B? Bill would reply that cars are about passion, style, excitement, and exploration, as well, with many people getting cars only for pleasure driving. I think it would be OBVIOUS to Bill that only being interested in getting from A to B is not required to own a car. It's not!

I think what Bill meant to say was that while procreation is obviously not relevant w.r.t the RIGHT to marry, it certainly is central to many marriages, and many people feel that encouraging responsible procreation is the whole point of the institution. Which I agree 100%, is OBVIOUS

Here's the next thing: Bill would like us to settle for civil unions. I agree it would be simpler if we just settled for that. There are a number of reasons why it won't fly:

1) most of the people who fight us on marriage are going to fight us on CU just as hard. Corollary: the same animus drives the two oppositions and in large part people want o beat the animus itself.

2) separate is never equal; just read the initial Prop 8 findings for details.

3) No one has offered us a CU with national reach. As such, people can get their California CU or DP and they're still blocked from much of the benefit.

While realizing that no one is suggesting my solution on a national scale either, it offers the advantage of appeasing both sides and being completely equal--and it appeals to people who don't want government meddling in private life:

1) Offer appropriate DP or CU benefits, equally, to unions of consenting adults, straight and otherwise.
2) Let private institutions decide whom to marry, and keep the government out of it (except possibly requiring eligibility standards).

This way no conservative has a government saying his gay neighbor is as married as he is. No Catholic church has any pressure from Uncle Sam about whom to marry. No gay person is treated unequally by the government. It's pretty cool. We can even write the laws to seriously promote ideal environments for kids by targeting just the couples with kids for special treatment, and we can actually strengthen unions by making them harder to take lightly or dissolve. It is actually a wet dream for the right, except for one little nagging fact: they will have to give up the idea they want government approving their marriage. And if they won't, theey need to explain why a gay person wouldn't want the same.

PS: Re: "This insistence that "we are the same" is on face value incorrect. If the unions were the same, there would be no reason for the fight in the first place."

I think this fails on two accounts.

1) The whole "we are the same" argument is HAPPILY accepted by the LARGE majority of the US population, including the SCOTUS, w.r.t marriages between whites and blacks. And yet, there had to be a legal battle about that, and decades of water under the bridge before some people with the old way of thinking died and most of the rest did finally agree that while the color was different, the fundamentals were the same, and a black-white marriage is "the same" as a single race marriage (w.r.t. the relevant characteristics).

Bill is going to disagree because he doesn't think race matters but gender does. THAT IS NOT THE POINT here, the point is that people USED to think race mattered and this changed, and also that the argument that a fight about marriage automatically means "we are not the same" is untrue.

2) I don't think this is an issue of "we are the same" anyway. There are obvious (oops, there it is again, but I think, appropriately) differences between same sex and opposite sex couples. We're not saying we're the same. We're saying we are EQUAL and should have the same access to marriage.

Incidentally, DADT repeal passed the house and is off to the senate. I imagine very soon we'll find that this becomes a nonissue, and another barrier to the normality of gay people has fallen. No doubt there will be some hype of things gone wrong, but things always go wrong, eg, when straight soldiers rape civilians or colleagues. That's no stain on the service of the rest of the straight soldiers.

It is also likely to be instant rather than incremental--sometimes, you fight change too hard and you lose your shot to make a gradual accomodation. Oops to that, hardliners. Hopefully it goes smoothly. If not, the people who didn't propose a phased implementation share some of the blame.

Meh. One way or another, repeal will happen. Some people will die. If the ones who die are gay, the gays and their cheerleaders will demand heads roll. If the ones who die are not gay, they'll consider it a small price to pay for 'progress.' No one, and I do mean no one, will take responsibility for when things go badly, least of all the loudest cheerleaders who demanded it. Instead, blame will be heaped on someone who didn't ask for this, and couldn't have hoped to keep it under control. And they'll lose their livelihood over it. But hey, it's 'progress.'

This battle is lost. I don't believe in it anymore. I'm not sure what to believe in. Logic and reason are out, Obama and Palin are in. Heroes are out, victims are in. Good, hardworking people are villainized, and unproductive talking heads are lionized. Morality and ethics are determined by the loudest. The American Dream is fizzling into some concoction of free healthcare, free cars, and freedom from having to think.

Whoa, JR, peace, amigo. People have been worrying about the direction of the nation for as it has existed. We've got issues, and I think the biggest ones are not who bunks next to us but entitlements and crushing debt, as well as a coming energy reckoning, but this is America, kay? We can handle it.

Nor is this a "battle," but rather, an opportunity for teamwork. I'm with Master Sergeant Roy.

You know, even though I'd suggested a phased implementation, and this appears to be sudden, we actually ARE going to get a phased implementation. Gay people are going to do what they do everywhere, more or less, which is carefully consider their environment before they share their orientation. Unwelcoming units are probably not likely to see rainbow pride parades in the barracks. We'll see, but I'm predicting no big deal.

I never pay attention to the WaPo, Ian. They can't help themselves. Nuff said.

I did however pick the article up in the Wall Street Journal this morning. I was at work (7 hours nonstop) and couldn't get on the Forums. But I thought about you.

WSJ wrote:

The Senate Saturday voted to end the military's ban on gays serving openly in the military, passing a bill that would begin the process of overturning the policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Senators voted 63-33 to advance the bill to the floor, passing a crucial 60-vote procedural hurdle late Saturday morning. Final passage Saturday afternoon was 65-31.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, gives thumbs up with Sen. Susan Collins and Sen. Mark Udallas they head into a new conference about the passage of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" bill.

The vote marks the end of a protracted legislative battle to overturn the policy, which was first enacted in 1993. Republican senators previously blocked a larger defense authorization bill that contained language that would set aside the policy. Proponents of repeal then introduced stand-alone legislation in a last-ditch effort to repeal the law before the end of the current lame-duck session of Congress.

"Plenty of people had already planned the funeral for this legislation," said Joe Solmonese, president of gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign. "Today, we pulled out a victory from what was almost certain defeat just a few days ago."

Congratulations!

Now... Maybe our government can get on with the business of UNdoing* the economic mess they created.

- Bill

* Note - I didn't imply that I wanted them to DO anything - unless of course it involves downsizing.

Thanks. Although, it's nothing to me personally, but should be good news for a bunch of dedicated service people.

PS: It's just a WaPo link because that was an appropriate piece that came up quickly on a google search. And the repeal is the repeal. As your personal physician I am asking you to carry an EpiPen in case someone touches you with a WaPo on the street

As your personal physician I am asking you to carry an EpiPen in case someone touches you with a WaPo on the street

Your professional courtesy greatly appreciated.

I know I'm being bad but... I do sometimes scan the front page of the NYT while at a coffee shop - just for the hysterical giggle value. Will this do long-term harm? Will I find myself purchasing the yogurt and granola?

You are right to worry. We have long known that regular people who start reading the WSJ have impulsively starting kicking homeless people, firebombing union offices, and stealing orphan's organs to give them to CEOs of Fortuen 500 companies. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that reading the NYT will cause you to support taxation until everyone's income is equal, tailoring brownshirts for the coming government takeover, and speaking with a French accent, although studies are ongoing.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum